Crime and Crime Prevention in Greater Johannesburg: The views of police station commissioners

Rauch, J. (1998). Crime and Crime Prevention in Greater Johannesburg: The views of police station commissioners. Paper presented at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Seminar No. 2, 12 March.

 

Janine Rauch is an independent consultant.

Date: 12 March 1998

Venue: Johannesburg Metropolitan Council, Johannesburg, South Africa

The CSVR has been providing assistance to the officials of the Greater Johannesburg Metro Council responsible for developing a crime prevention strategy. This paper is intended to contribute to the development of the Safer Cities strategy for Greater Johannesburg.

The CSVR would like to thank the Provincial Commissioner of the South African Police Service (SAPS) in Gauteng for authorising this research, and each of the SAPS Station Commissioners in Greater Johannesburg for their time, patience and willingness to be interviewed.

The author would like to thank David Bruce, Amanda Dissel, Kindiza Ngubeni, Jennifer Nix, Traggy Maepa, Duxita Mistry, Tlhoki Mofokeng and Shirley Kayton for conducting interviews and transcribing tapes, Caron Kgomo for administrative assistance, and the management of the CSVR for supporting this project.

Background

The CSVR is an independent non-governmental organisation which works on a range of activities, including research, related to violence and reconciliation. It is one of the organisations which is assisting the Safer Cities office in the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council (GJMC) to develop and implement a crime prevention strategy for the city. It was our work in the Safer Cities process which provoked this research: while the views and experiences of victims have been throughly canvassed as a basis for the Safer Cities programme (the Johannesburg Victim Survey by Louw et al is the research basis for the programme), we felt that the views and experiences of the police in Johannesburg were not adequately represented in the process. We therefore decided to conduct this survey and to present our findings, in the first instance, to the Safer Cities programme.

Methodology

Data Gathering

Data for this research was gathered by means of a structured interviews with Station Commissioners at each of the police stations within the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan area between January and March of 1998. A team of researchers and fieldworkers from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation conducted the interviews, according to a structured questionnaire made up of open-ended questions. All the interviews were tape recorded and transcribed.

Many of the Station Commissioners expressed reservations about the use of tape recorders, in all cases citing a fear of being quoted (out of context) in the media, or a past experience of this. While the interviewers did succeed in allaying the fears of the Station Commissioners and did use the tape recorders in all interviews, this remained the major methodological challenge for the research team. We do not know the extent to which the Station Commissioners may have tempered their views because they were being recorded. Certainly, many of them seemed (initially at least) ill-at-ease with the formal, structured style of the interview. In some cases, this may also have been related to our decision to use English as the only language for the interviews, which would have increased the discomfort for non-mother-tongue English speakers (probably the majority of the station commissioners).

One of the reasons for using tape recorders is to be able to produce direct quotes from the interviews, thus bringing the "voices" of the station commissioners directly into this report. This approach was selected precisely because one of the motives for this project was to ensure that police views are heard in the Safer Cities strategy development process. However, we are aware that direct quotations can also be used to portray and perpetuate stereotypes, and to isolate and humiliate respondents. We attempt to avoid this by locating direct quotations in the context of our analysis, and by not attributing quotes to an individual or station area.

Sampling

We chose to interview station commissioners for this study because they are a group which is easy to identify and access. This does not mean that they are representative of all the police officials serving in Johannesburg. We identified 38 police station areas which fall entirely or largely within the boundaries of Greater Johannesburg (see 3.1 below). We approached the station commissioners in each of these stations and requested an interview, and had a 100% response rate.

Satellite police stations (or "sub-stations" such as Poortjie, Melville and Maraisburg), and stations with less than 50% of their station area falling into Greater Johannesburg (cf Muldersdrift) were not interviewed for this study. 38 interviews were conducted with station commissioners (see Annexure A). Of these, 34 interviews were conducted with the Station Commissioners themselves, 2 with "Acting" Station Commissioners, and 2 with other officers in the station to whom we were referred by the Station Commissioner. In many cases, the station's Crime Prevention Officer sat in on the interview and contributed to the discussion.

Analysis

The use of open-ended questions produces a vast amount of data, as does any South African discussion about crime. Analysis of this volume of data will take some time, and this is the first of a number of research reports and papers which will be generated from the information gathered in these interviews. Analysis will be limited at this stage, and this paper will present findings at the level of description and limited analysis.

One of the challenges in analysing data of this type is the disjuncture between the discourse (or "language") of the police and the discourse used by the researchers who are reading, responding to, and analysing the police officers' words. This disjuncture is particularly obvious around notions such as "crime" which are socially constructed, and "crime prevention" which have begun to be contested in the public policy arena. The dynamic between different meanings and interpretations of these terms is creative; and we hope will impact positively on strategies for safety in Johannesburg. The process of analysis necessarily involves categorising the data, and hence, developing categories and criteria which are imposed on the interview material. Our methodology sees this as an interactive process: the information provided by the interviewees, and they way they formulate their answers to questions, contributes to the shape of the analysis. The interviewers become more adept in the discussions of crime as they move through the police stations, and the quality of discussions in later interviews is richer as a result. Section 9 below describes complexities in the approaches to crime prevention which arose during analysis of the interview data.

The Notion of "Greater Johannesburg"

Boundary Issues

We set out to interview police station commissioners in every SAPS Station Area in the metropolis, not realising that our first major hurdle would be to identify exactly which stations, and how many, there were within the Metro Area.

We began with the SAPS "areas" of Johannesburg and Soweto, in which all the stations would fall within the Metro Area. Then the more difficult task arose, of identifying stations which fall into SAPS Areas such as "West Rand", "Vaal", "North Rand" and "Pretoria", but which are, in fact, located within the Greater Johannesburg Metro Area. No-one, in the SAPS, the Metro or the Provincial government, could tell us unequivocally which police stations fall within Greater Johannesburg.

We therefore had to resort to lateral methods of investigation and began scanning telephone directories and maps of Greater Johannesburg; and then calling police stations to ask whether or not they fell within the Metro Area. It was on the basis of this approach that we identified the 38 police stations we visited, and we do not discount the possibility that there may be a couple more police stations, which do fall into Greater Johannesburg, but which we did not find!

In discussion with the Department of Development Planning at the Gauteng Provincial Government, we discovered that the SAPS are not alone in having different boundaries and sub-structures to those of the Provincial and Local government. In fact, virtually every government department works with different boundaries and delivery units – magisterial districts and health districts, for example, are also different to the local authority sub-structures and districts in Johannesburg.

Not only does the SAPS "Johannesburg" area not match the Metro "Greater Johannesburg Area",¹ but there is also no correlation between SAPS Areas and the Metropolitan Sub-structures of Johannesburg. For the purposes of this report, we will impose rough boundaries of the four Metro Substructures onto the 38 police stations in order to analyse crime patterns suggested by the Station Commissioners. More detailed Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are being developed by the SAPS, the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) which will, in time, be able to give more accurate geographic information about crime in the Metropolis.

The distribution of police stations and the allocation of police resources is heavily skewed by apartheid policies; and cannot easily be changed; as police stations cannot simply be "moved" and resources to build new stations are limited. The boundaries of the new MSS were designed to compensate for un-even allocation of resources in the Metro area, and are sometimes also anomalous: the Southern Metro Sub-Structure, for example, covers most of downtown Johannesburg, most of Soweto and some areas which are peri-urban and almost rural. Crime trends in this MSS are therefore extremely diverse; and suggest that some other definitional sub-division of the area is required in order to develop intervention and prevention strategies (see National Crime Prevention Strategy – NCPS – approach to "dis-aggregating" crime. NCPS 1996:9).

Relationships with the City

One of the interesting themes which arose during the course of this research was the notion of "Johannesburg" as a city or a metropolis, and, in particular, how this relates to ideas and discourses around crime.

"Boundary Issues" above describes how the SAPS as an organisation describes "Johannesburg" and "Soweto" and the "West Rand" as separate entities. The structures of local government are premised on another description of Johannesburg as one greater metropolitan area, which includes Soweto and parts of the West Rand and the Vaal.

This disjuncture also arose during the survey in responses by some of the station commissioners to the question "Do you live in the Greater Johannesburg Area?". Some said yes, (for example "yes, I live in Tembisa") when their home is not part of the Greater Johannesburg Metro area; and some said no (for example, "no, I live in Roodepoort") when their home does, in fact, fall within Greater Johannesburg. While one might have expected the station commissioners to be familiar with the new boundaries and definitions of Johannesburg, this is probably a reflection of confusion which is common to many residents of the metropolis, and a legacy of apartheid urban planning. This confusion may be an obstacle to concepts such as "Safer Cities" if people do not relate to their own residential areas as part of the "City" in question.

Who are the Station Commissioners?

The station commissioners were asked a brief set of demographic questions, which elicited the following data.

Local Cops?

We did not ask detailed questions of the station commissioners about their backgrounds, but were interested in where they came from. This related to a suggestion made by many of them, that policing in Johannesburg would be more effective if police officers were recruited from Johannesburg. In an attempt to ascertain where they are from, we asked the station commissioners where they joined the police. This assumes that they joined the police at or nearby to their place of origin, or at least the place where they completed their schooling (as the vast majority of them joined the police directly after school). The responses to our question "Where did you join the police?" were as follows:

• Gauteng = 40%
• KwaZulu Natal = 20%
• Western Cape = 17%
• Northern Province = 11%
• Free State = 2.8%
• Mpumalanga = 2.8%
• Eastern Cape = 2.8%

This means that the majority of station commissioners in Greater Johannesburg are not from Gauteng. This is a result of the traditional recruitment policy of the (former) SAP, which was informed by crude ethnic stereotypes (eg. "Indians want to stay in Natal" – see Rauch 1992) and by hypotheses about preventing corruption by minimising familiarity with the community (this type of argument flies in the face of the modern philosophy of community policing).

We asked the station commissioners how long they have served in their current station area (in any post – not only as station commissioner). The responses to this question gave a range from 3 weeks – 12 years, with a mean of 4.8 years. This means that the average station commissioner has spent over 4 years in his/her station area and should therefore be able to speak with some experience and authority on the dynamics of that area.

We also asked the station commissioners how long they had served in the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan area. The range of responses to this question was 2 years – 36 years; with a mean of 11 years. This means that the average station commissioner in Greater Johannesburg has worked in the Metro area for 11 years. This suggests a high degree of familiarity with the city, and lends credence to the station commissioners' views about its problems and possible solutions.

Another indicator of the connection between the Station Commissioners and the Metropolis would be whether or not they choose to live in the Metropolitan area. In response to this question, 83% of the Station Commissioners indicated that they reside in the Metro area, and 17% outside the city.

Career Cops?

We asked the station commissioners how long they had served in the SAPS, and answers to this question ranged from 9 – 36 years. The average station commissioner in Greater Johannesburg has served 20 years in the police. The vast majority of them joined the police directly after completing their schooling, and only 20% have ever had any other job outside the police. This fits with the traditional patterns of the SAPS and with notions of the police as a "career" or even a "calling".

Age, Race, Gender & Rank

The racial breakdown of the police station commissioners in Greater Johannesburg is not representative of the racial demographics of the Metro area, or even of the SAPS, as a whole. According to traditional South African definitions, the station commissioners are:

• White = 58%
• African = 18%
• Indian = 16%
• Coloured = 8%

The gender breakdown is even less representative – only two women were among the 38 station managers we interviewed, and one of these was an "acting" station commissioner. This means that only 5% of the current police station commissioners in Greater Johannesburg are women.

The age of station commissioners ranges from 30 – 54 years old. The average age of a station commissioner in Greater Johannesburg is 40 years.

The rank of the station commissioners is determined according to the size of the station and the number of personnel they are required to supervise, and not by the career track of the individual officer (who apply for the post of station commissioner at its designated rank). The ranks of station commissioners in Greater Johannesburg range from Captain, through Superintendent, Senior Superintendent to Director. The age, race and gender breakdown of the station commissioners we interviewed would probably be fairly representative of national demographics in these ranks of the SAPS. This would be a result of the legacy of apartheid policing, racially-based promotion and training procedures, and the failure of efforts to implement affirmative action in the SAPS.

Crime Priorities of the Station Commissioners

Crime Categories

To ascertain the priorities and major crime concerns of the station commissioners, we asked the question "What are the main crime problems in your station area?". Answers to this question were then collated and analysed into the following categories, which do not correlate directly with the definitions of crimes as laid down in the Criminal Procedure Act and used by the SAPS:

• Vehicle Related crime – theft of and out of motor-vehicles
• Housebreaking – housebreaking, burglary, all robbery at residences
• Armed Robbery – armed robbery not at residences; some muggings
• Street Robbery – street robbery, some muggings (generally without guns)
• Assault – common and serious assault (GBH)
• Family Violence – violence against women, children and old people committed in the home or elsewhere by people in intimate relationships
• Rape – rape (as per standard legal definition)
• Murder – as per standard legal definition
• Hijack – hijack of any vehicle with or without any weapon

We have attempted to use categorisations which are popularly understood and informed by "common sense" rather than by legal definitions. The legal definition of armed robbery, for example, can cover an armed bank robbery and a street mugging, crimes which have very different meanings and implications for victims and investigators.

Crimes Identified by the Station Commissioners in the Northern Metropolitan Sub-Structure

In the 7 stations which fall into (roughly) the area of the Northern MSS of Johannesburg, the following six main crime categories emerged in response to the question "what are the main crime problems in your station area?".

• Vehicle-related crimes (mentioned by 6 out of 7 station commissioners)
• Housebreaking (6)
• Armed Robbery (4)
• Assault (3)
• Rape (2)
• Murder (2)

Crimes Identified by the Station Commissioners in the Southern Metropolitan Sub-Structure

In the 16 police stations in the Southern MSS area the following five main crime categories emerged in response to the question "what are the main crime problems in your station area?".

• Assault (mentioned by 12 out of 16 station commissioners in this MSS area)
• Vehicle-Related Crime (11)
• Housebreaking (10)
• Family Violence (9)
• Armed Robbery (8)

Crimes Identified by the Station Commissioners in the Eastern Metropolitan Sub-Structure

In the 9 police stations in the Eastern MSS the following five main crime categories emerged in response to the question "what are the main crime problems in your station area?".

• Housebreaking (mentioned by 8 out of 9 station commissioners)
• Vehicle-related crimes (8)
• Hijack (7)
• Armed Robbery (4)
• Street Robbery & Mugging (4)

Crimes Identified by the Station Commissioners in the Western Metropolitan Sub-Structure

In the 6 police stations in the Western MSS the following main crime categories emerged in response to the question "what are the main crime problems in your station area?".

• Housebreaking (mentioned by all 6 station commissioners in the MSS)
• Assault (mentioned by 5 station commissioners out of 6)
• Hijack (5)
• Armed Robbery (4)
• Vehicle-related crimes (4)

Priority Crimes Identified by the Station Commissioners – Greater Johannesburg

The survey of 38 police stations in the GJMC generated the following "top six" crime priorities in response to the question "what are the main crime problems in your station area?"

• Housebreaking (mentioned by 30 station commissioners)
• Vehicle-related crimes (29 station commissioners)
• Armed Robbery (20)
• Assault (20)
• Vehicle Hijack (13)
• Family violence (9)

The survey questionnaire did not contain questions about the type of areas making up the station's area of jurisdiction, and, therefore, it is not possible to analyse which type of crime is seen as a priority for which type of area. However, in debriefing sessions, the interview team shared qualitative information about the types of neighbourhoods and functions within each station area. We created four categories: inner city, industrial areas, former black townships and informal settlements, and former white suburbs. Out of a qualitative debriefing discussion, we found that

• housebreaking is a common police concern across Greater Johannesburg, in all types of neighbourhoods;
• concern about street crime and drug-related crime is concentrated in the inner city of Johannesburg
• property crime and violent property crime is a concern in residential areas, both former white suburbs, former black townships and informal settlements;
• concern about violent crime is concentrated in former black townships and informal settlements.

Our findings, both quantitative and qualitative, correlate quite closely with the findings of the Johannesburg victim survey (Louw et al p 17), in which the seven most prevalent experiences of victimisation in Johannesburg were reported, in order of prevalence, as follows:

• Burglary (mentioned by 24% of respondents)
• Mugging and Robbery (16.5 % of respondents)
• Assault (15.5% of respondents)
• Car Theft
• Other Theft
• Sexual Incidents
• Car Hijacking

This suggests that the police station commissioners are fairly accurate in prioritising the most common crimes in Johannesburg; that their knowledge of the crime situation is accurate.

Selection of Police Priorities

The identification of crime priorities by the police is not a simple process. In deciding on priorities, the police manager is influenced by a range of external factors, as well as by his/her own values and beliefs. Factors which are likely to impact on the identification of priorities are:

• Trends in Reported Crime at the Police Station: crimes which are reported more commonly will receive more police attention, of both reactive and preventive varieties. This means that crimes such as sexual violence, family violence and small scale theft, which are generally under-reported, are less likely to feature on as police priorities. "Victimless" crimes, such as some drug-related offences, environmental damage etc will probably also not feature because they are not likely to be reported in large numbers.

• Official Area, Provincial and National Priorities: The SAPS in 1997 introduced a system for defining its priorities and objectives, including specified "priority crimes". The station commissioners feel some pressure, and some even feel resentment at having to focus their stations' efforts at the "official" priorities, when these do not match the real problems of crime and disorder. (This is a common dynamic in policework all over the world and also relates to what is defined as "crime" and what is seen as "police work"). One station commissioner said

  Our problems are more with violence, more with the problems in our community. But, as you know, the priority crimes for Johannesburg are robbery, hijacking, theft of motor vehicles and from motor vehicles. But our highest crime here is housebreaking, and we have a very big problem with assaults.

• Public Pressure: The station commissioners are susceptible to pressure from the media and from their local community (eg through the CPF). Often the pressure serves to prioritise only those crimes which affect the most vocal and powerful sections of that community.

  The main reason why people are blowing up the crime such a lot is the violence that's involved. Personally, I don't think there's such an increase in crime; it's more the violence factor. The violence increases, that makes the community mad, you know. They can steal plenty of cars and they won't complain; but one hijacking or attempted hijacking where a firearm was just pointed, and crime is being blown up – specifically in these northern suburbs among the richer people – blown up into front page news.

• Individual Values and Beliefs: the views of the station commissioners must be informed by their own internal value systems and beliefs. For example, if a police man holds traditionally patriarchal views about women and marriage, it is unlikely that he will view domestic violence or sexual harassment as serious crime problems. If he has deeply ingrained racial stereotypes about how certain groups of people are "expected" or "supposed" to behave, this may prevent him from seeing regular violence or disorder in those communities as serious crime priorities.

• Corruptibility: if a station commissioner is corruptible, it is possible that criminals could arrange to get certain of their activities "dropped" from a local list of crime priorities in order to evade police scrutiny.

Factors Contributing to Crime

Conceptual & Analytical Issues

The responses of the station commissioners to the question "What do you think are the main causes of crime, or factors contributing to crime, in your area?" are described below in eight broad categories, listed in order from the most common to the least common explanations provided by the station commissioners.

We know that crime is an extremely complex social phenomenon, which has a variety of complex causes and effects. It was therefore, somewhat unfair to ask the station commissioners to answer a question about factors "causing or contributing to" crime in Johannesburg. However, we believed that as professionals dealing with crime, they would have a well-worn analysis of the problem; or would have reproduced the policy analysis provided in the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS).² This was not the case.

Socio-Economic Factors

Most of the station commissioners (26) used the broad category of "socio-economic conditions" to situate crime problems in their area, assuming, perhaps, that this analysis would be understood and shared by the interviewers. Common elements of the term "socio-economic conditions" were references to unemployment, lack of physical resources and to social dislocation in poor communities.

That guy, for some reason, wherever he stays, decided 'I'm going to come and steal a car'. We are dealing with the symptom here, but we're still not addressing the root, why did he come from Hillbrow, Soweto, wherever, to come and steal a car here?

The socio-economic conditions in the country, that's also a problem. These people, the incentive to commit crime, that's what it's all about, because if there's no food, no roof over your head, then something has to be done and the easiest way to do it is by means of small crimes and they sometimes lead to big crimes.

There is a lot of unemployment, 70% of the people in my area are unemployed. So we have a very big problem. From the unemployment you sit with your social problems.

One interesting link which was repeatedly made was that between unemployment and substance abuse:

The major problem is the socio-economic situation. Our place consists of a lower-class community. Only a small percentage of people is employed. And those who are employed are just doing ordinary jobs, you know, working for food. So they end up not having something that can keep them at home. Instead they go out for entertainment, and their entertainment is nothing else but drinking.

Alcohol abuse is a big socio-economic problem and the breakdown of family values has just compounded the problem. The parents drink and they don't encourage children to go to school anymore. There is no supervision, there's a great deal of unemployment. The children get caught up in that cycle.

There's a total family breakdown in this community.

Although there is a growing body of research on the relationship between family structure and experience and criminality, surprisingly few of the station commissioners mentioned family dynamics as a contributing factor to crime in Johannesburg. There was also very little reference to "youth" as a problematic category. These omissions should not be interpreted to mean that family and youth problems are not contributing to crime in Johannesburg, but rather as a comment on the social understanding and perspectives of the station commissioners.

Substance Abuse

Substance abuse, and predominantly alcohol, was the second most common factor mentioned by station commissioners as contributing to crime in Johannesburg – it was referred to at 23 out of the 38 stations.

Alcohol – number one [cause]. Alcohol, definitely number one. People are claiming [that it's] unemployment; I don't think that unemployment can contribute here. Because if you are unemployed, where will you get the money to buy alcohol?

Some years ago, some people predicted that the AK47 would destroy the country. I say no, alcohol. Alcohol will. … Unfortunately, I don't know what the liquor companies will say, but it's a serious problem. Honestly.

The references to alcohol were universally made in relation to violent crime, such as assault, rape and murder. It also follows that the concern for alcohol abuse is highest in areas where violent crime is highest (former black townships and informal settlements) and where alcohol is consumed in public (entertainment areas).

In some inner-city police stations, the station commissioners also referred to abuse of drugs as a contributing factor to crime. This referred to the drug trade and crime associated with that; or to the demand for drugs on the part of consumers and the opportunities that that presents for crime.

Criminal Organisations

A similar number of station commissioners (22) mentioned criminal organisations – of various types – as contributing to the crime problem in their area.

I won't call it gangs. I will call it a group of people who come together to commit a crime. You see, a gang is an organised gang, with names, like the Scorpions', things like that. I don't think it's the same thing here in the black townships. They form groups to work for the syndicate. When you talk about gangs, they are controlling a whole area. And the township is not like that. It's groups operating to commit crimes.

But I still maintain there is someone else behind this. The brains behind this. And you will never see him. He just gets these little people, especially the youngsters, to commit these crimes, and give them a few bucks or whatever.

There is a very common view among station commissioners that crime in Johannesburg is organised, but the traditional meanings attached to concepts like "gangs" are clearly no longer functional to them.

Community Attitudes and Values

18 of the station commissioners made reference to factors which we group in this category of community attitudes and values which contribute to crime. These ranges from citing the frustration-aggression hypothesis, the absence of appropriate role models for young people, to bemoaning the hostility and lack of co-operation which the police experience from the communities they serve.

It's a culture of violence, liquor, drugs, They say if you don't drink, involve yourself in drugs, or womanise, then you are a moffie. … It's peer pressure. And their role models are totally wrong. They don't want to be a doctor or a lawyer or whatever, they want to be drug lord or a car syndicate. Why the hell must I go to school? When I can steal cars and be a multi-millionaire and be driving a new BMW, flashy gold chains, and have the best women around. That's the normal trend here.

Problems with community attitudes and values also vary across class divides. The station commissioners in the more affluent parts of town spoke about the apathy and hostility of their communities, as much as the commissioners in less affluent areas bemoaned the lack of community co-operation.

People get a security company, they build high walls, get an armed response company, a little Rottweiler running around on their lawn and they don't care what's happening next door, they don't care what's happening in the streets. … I'm sick and tired of white people, because all they want to do is moan. They've got a very bad attitude. … There's a lot of people who have this perception of 'it's none of my business; I just want to survive; I'm just hanging on till I can emigrate'.

The others, between the ages of 20 and 50, say 'it's the government's responsibility, it's not our responsibility'. And you know always, when he folds his hands. And I tell them, in this South Africa we are in now, you can't afford to have a folded arm approach.

Illegal Immigrants

Fifteen of the station commissioners mentioned illegal immigrants and foreigners as contributing to their crime problems. The degrees of sophistication with which this argument was used varied:

Basically the whole of Johannesburg is known for its illegal immigrants and the problem with that is that they take the work the South Africans and that is one of the causes of crime as well.. There must be definite steps to get rid of these illegal immigrants – or there must be some more control methods to make sure that they don't come in to the country.

The illegal immigrants who, I feel, are, to a large extent, responsible for the majority of crime here.

The reason for some of these robberies here is that people tend to employ these Zimbabweans and illegal immigrants and so on.

Environmental Factors

Fifteen station commissioners mentioned environmental factors which contribute to crime in their areas. Town planning, and in particular, the planning of roads, was mentioned as a factor which can enable or facilitate crime. Station commissioners also spoke about problems which arise when land use patterns change – for example when a previously quiet suburb becomes a hub for night-time entertainment, or when squatters move into open spaces or parks.

People just build shacks wherever they want to and you know that we do not have the right to break shacks. It is council property. There are even some roads that have been closed because people just come and build a shack there. There are also certain streets that we think should be closed because they are being used as a getaway.

I have fairly accessible routes to my area. In one I have Main Reef Road and I have numerous arterial roads coming in to Florida. .. So the criminals have got fast and effective access and escape routes from this area.

Station areas which include informal settlements have common problems with a lack infrastructure in those areas, and, in particular, the lack of visible street names and house numbers. The station commissioners suggest that this makes it easy for criminals to "hide" in such areas, and difficult for the police to operate there:

If you look at the informal settlement, the houses are not numbered, there are no proper roads. To attend a complaint, you have to be accompanied by the complainant [to find the place]. The policeman is afraid to enter that informal settlement, especially at night, because everything is so dark. There are no lights.

The maintenance of street lights and of verges and open spaces was also a common concern of the station commissioners, in all parts of the metropolitan area.

You find sometimes the grass is tall and it's just neglected. You need to have that cut, the place must look neat. Street lights – these flood lights in strategic places, because criminals normally focus their attention when it's dark. They want to do their things in the dark.

Another environmental problem cited by the police station commissioners is the prevalence of high walls in Johannesburg:

That's our biggest problem here, the neighbours don't know each other, they've got high walls and high fences.

Walls – that can have an influence, that can assist crime, in a way, because the perpetrator is behind a wall and we cannot see him.

All the companies that come up now have high walls so you don't really see what is happening inside those high walls. Of course you can't do patrols inside the company, you can just do patrols outside the company.

Urbanisation & Development

Fourteen of the station commissioner mentioned aspects of urbanisation and development that might contribute to crime in their areas. Some of these referred to influx and density of accommodation in the inner city and in former black townships, with a number of explicit references to the crime problems associated with informal settlements:

The squatter camp can be directly brought into context with the crime which is happening in that area. The housebreakings that are happening are happening in the immediate vicinity of the squatter camp. I have been to the squatter camp. They are jobless. They haven't got food. These people must eat and live. And I think that crime may be how these people eat and stay alive.

And look at our area as well. Well, we know about the informal settlement issues. But here, as well, because in a small place where we are supposed to have maybe a four-roomed house, you have about 15 shacks, all belonging to various families, and a very tight congestion in terms of population.

But the impact of development on crime is not felt only around informal settlements. A number of station commissioners mentioned the criminogenic effects of new developments such as shopping centres and large-scale construction projects. In some cases that said that the construction workers on development projects often became in crime as victims, perpetrators, or as clients for various types of illegal trade (drugs, alcohol, prostitution and stolen goods).

Lots of factories opened up here. Nobody came to the police and said this is going to happen. When they built all these stadiums, what happened? Nobody came to the police to say 'listen, you have an input'. And we could have told them, it's okay, but first look at the parking. Get parking first and then start the thing. Now, what happens? Everything is new, it's lovely. And there's no parking!

Another factor is the development of this area. By that I mean we have a major shopping complex, I think it's the first of its kind in a black township. With this shopping centre being built here, we find that people from all over Soweto no longer go to Southgate and Westgate and so on. They come here. And we've noticed that our robberies, armed robberies, have actually increased in the vicinity. Because people are being paid, they are going to do shopping, and are robbed on their way.

Victim Negligence

Thirteen of the station commissioners made reference to victim negligence as a factor contributing to property crime in Johannesburg.

Homes that should be properly secured are not always properly secured.

They still want only the police to take care of the whole security situation. The majority of residents and business people are reluctant to play a part in securing themselves.

Current Police Crime Prevention Practice in Johannesburg

Conceptual Framework

There are many different classifications of [crime] prevention. None is completely satisfactory. … All classifications do a degree of injustice to the complexity of the world. (Hough & Tilley 1998:3)

Although the purpose of the criminal justice system is deterrence as much as punishment, it is clear from the continued rise of crime rates all over the world that the criminal justice system alone is not an effective means of preventing crime. In South Africa, the crisis in the criminal justice system has focussed attention on demands for more policing and more punishment; demands which are limitless. Recognising this, the government has adopted a multi-faceted approach to crime prevention, contained in its 1996 National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS). Although the NCPS has had little impact on police practice to date, it has influenced the realm of policy and ideas to the extent that most stakeholders now agree that dealing with crime is not the responsibility of the police alone – a significant shift from the securocrat discourses around crime and social conflict in South Africa in the 1980s. The end of international isolation and the demands associated with transition to democracy in South Africa have thrown the SAPS at high speed into a new field of ideas about crime prevention; and their training and organisation hardly equip them to engage with and implement the sophisticated ideas about crime prevention which abound in international policing and prevention fora. Concepts such as community policing, partnerships and inter-agency collaboration have been sowed on hard ground in the South African Police Service.

This section of the paper attempts to define and examine current crime prevention practices in Johannesburg, as described by the station commissioners. The information gathered is not detailed, and station commissioners were not given time to prepare or deliver very sophisticated answers to our question "what crime prevention activities currently take place in your station area?".

A crude history of approaches to crime prevention in Western democracies in recent years would show a continuum as follows:

Era	1960s-1970s	1980s	1990s
Type of Crime Prevention	Unfocussed Crime Prevention	Situational Crime Prevention	Partnerships & Community Safety
Features	generalised not based on research publicity & education campaigns	multi-agency collaboration between govt agencies problem-oriented	inter-agency collaborative between govt agencies incorporates social and situational approaches

Early crime prevention approaches were unfocussed, not based on research, and did not prepare the police for working closely with other agencies. One of the main elements of this type of crime prevention is the publicity campaign, "which relies on one-way communication, followed by the hoped-for co-operation of the public in becoming more security conscious. It has not been spectacularly successful". (Gilling 1997:162) It is clear from the responses of station commissioners in Johannesburg that this remains one of the dominant and favoured approaches to crime prevention by the SAPS.

Situational crime prevention developed elsewhere out of a recognition of the costs and limits of the criminal justice system, and in a climate of increasing fear of crime and scepticism about the effectiveness of traditional policing methods. The history of the SAPS and the current public panic and media hype about crime, together with the ANC government's tighter fiscal policy, create similar conditions in contemporary South Africa.

Situational crime prevention focuses on the "situations" in which particular crimes take place. It is problem-oriented, and requires that prevention possibilities be considered from all angles, with the most viable approaches being implemented and evaluated. Situational crime prevention introduces the idea of multi-agency problem-solving, recognising that information about crime is divided between a number of different bodies, as are the resources to deal with it. (Gilling 1997:159)

In South Africa, the "dis-aggregation" approach preached by the NCPS promotes this type of crime prevention; and, indeed, this type of crime prevention is closely related to the philosophy of community policing which has been permeating the SAPS since the early 1990s. One of the features of situational crime prevention is its "multi-agency" approach – primarily, collaboration between government bodies – and it is this approach which is one of the central policy innovations of the NCPS.

More recently, the idea and practice of situational crime prevention has been superseded elsewhere by ideas of "community safety" and "partnership". One of the things which distinguishes this 1990s-style crime prevention from situational crime prevention is that it requires local collaboration between different sectors of the "mixed economy of crime prevention", and not just between government agencies (Gilling 1997:159). Community safety approaches pose more fundamental challenges to the police organisation than earlier approaches to crime prevention, because they require the police service to engage in partnerships which involve relinquishing traditional control or autonomy; and because they tend to focus more locally, which is a direct challenge to traditionally militarised and centralised police organisations.

Community safety is increasingly a corporate approach that requires the representation of all different elements of a coherent crime prevention package, taking in situational and social crime prevention, but also fear prevention and conventional forms of policing. Moreover, as the magnitude and the differential impact of the crime problem has become apparent, so this has required that this package be located firmly within the community, incorporating private citizens and businesses. (Gilling 1997:166)

In examining the various forms of crime prevention currently practised by the police in Johannesburg, we note the prevalence of old-fashioned, unfocussed crime prevention, alongside innovative situational approaches and traditional law enforcement activities. We found a distinct lack of coherence and theoretical knowledge in the descriptions of crime prevention by the station commissioners.

In categorising the crime prevention activities described to us by the station commissioners, we use definitions provided by Sherman et al (1997) and by Hough and Tilley (1998).

Enforcement Approaches

Normal police practice is viewed as having a crime prevention benefit in this model, which is the most common set of activities described by the station commissioners as "crime prevention". The activities, which we categorise as "law enforcement" or "policing" approaches to crime prevention, would include the following practices described to us by the station commissioners:

More Police

The objective of this approach is to increase police visibility in an area, thereby deterring or displacing potential offenders. In Johannesburg, given the limited person and vehicle-power available to the SAPS, this is done in conjunction with the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), police reservists and by replacing police officials on administrative duties with civilian volunteers, thus freeing up uniformed police officials for activities which make them more "visible" in the area. This approach could also be described as the "visibility" approach to crime prevention; and can be developed fairly rapidly into the heavier "saturation policing" if a disorderly situation requires.

Rapid Response to Calls

The argument for rapid response as a crime prevention measure is based on the idea that, if they arrive speedily, the police will interrupt criminals and prevent the crime from being committed or concluded. The flaw in the argument is that most emergency calls relate to crimes that have already been committed, where perpetrators have long since left the scene.

The SAPS in Johannesburg, and particularly in formerly black areas, experience a number of difficulties with responding rapidly to emergency calls. These revolve around the availability and management of personnel and physical resources such as vehicles, radios and telephones. Interventions such as "Project Lifeline" and the "Service Delivery Improvement Programme" have attempted to improve the response time of the SAPS in Greater Johannesburg and elsewhere, with the intention of apprehending offenders and providing more speedy services to victims. Few of the station commissioners mentioned these interventions in the category of crime prevention activities, but many of them mentioned problems around response time when asked what organisational obstacles they faced in dealing effectively with crime in their area.

Random /Routine Patrols

Most of the station commissioners spoke about the importance of patrol as a prevention strategy, with many of them emphasising "directed" or "targeted" patrol, which is a form of situational crime prevention. However, the traditional routine patrol, which is based on the idea that the "omnipresence" of the police in an area will deter crime, remains a key component of police crime prevention approaches in Johannesburg. Some stations have introduced innovations into their regular patrols, such as horses, motorcycles or bicycles; which increase mobility and visibility. In the main, however the station commissioners appear convinced that routine patrolwork is one of the key components of police crime prevention work in the metropolis, and it is to this function that requests for additional personnel often relate.

Reactive Arrests

This approach is based on the traditional assumption that arrest of a perpetrator will deter others from committing the same crime, and deter the perpetrator from repeating the criminal act. Not many of the station commissioners referred to this routine activity as part of their crime prevention programme; and those who did often mentioned the arrests as a component of pro-active tactics such as roadblocks, cordon and search operations and "zero-tolerance" approaches. Although we did not systematically collect data on this aspect, from the information which was offered during our interviews with station commissioners, it would appear that arrest and clear-up rates remain at the levels reflected in the 1996 NEDCOR Report; which are not dissimilar to rates elsewhere in the world.

Pro-Active Arrests

Two types of approaches to pro-active arrests are being implemented in different parts of Johannesburg. Firstly, some station commissioners are testing the "zero tolerance" tactics promoted by former New York Commissioner Bill Bratton and academics Wilson, Kelling and Cole. The "New York Approach" has been given major media exposure in South Africa, Bratton visited our country to promote the approach, and a number of police officers from Johannesburg have visited New York City to see new police procedures in operation. It is therefore not surprising that this approach is favoured by a number of the station commissioners.

We are currently working on the 'broken window' syndrome. If you address your petty offences, your serious offences drop. We believe that the more visible you are in an area, the more your crime is going to drop. Any petty thing in public, we lock you up. … You are also sending a clear message.

However, there is definitely not consensus among the station commissioners about this approach. One station commissioner told us that "we tried the broken windows approach, and it doesn't work. This is not New York".

The other method of conducting pro-active arrests, which is more prevalent in Johannesburg, is by conducting roadblocks and cordon-and-search operations, a legacy of the military style of policing inherited from our past. It seems that these "special operations" are common in the SAPS Johannesburg area, and in parts of Soweto. They often involve the local authority traffic police and the SANDF. They are related to situational prevention initiatives insofar as they are planned for "hot-spot" areas as a means of deterring and displacing serious crimes. Sections of Johannesburg's community seem to appreciate these operations, at least as a symbol of security, even though other sections of the community find them unpalatably reminiscent of apartheid-style law-enforcement. Some of the station commissioners mentioned the dynamic between building legitimacy through community policing initiatives, and tackling serious crime with such heavy tactics.

Situational Crime Prevention

The majority of the crime prevention activities described by the station commissioners fall into the category of situational crime prevention activities. This is a relatively new approach for the SAPS, and the predictable unfamiliarity with it was reflected in a number of the interviews. Although there have been some pockets of excellent situational prevention in the SAPS in Johannesburg and elsewhere for some time; it was clear from the interviews that the top management and Business Against Crime "push" for a focussed approach to crime problem-solving is beginning to take root among the station commissioners.

Directed/Targeted Patrol

One of the major features of situational crime prevention by the police is the practise of "directed" or "targeted" patrols. In contrast to routine patrols, this approach requires that police resources be directed at particular problems and problematic areas. Many of the station commissioners told us how they were doing (new) crime pattern analysis on a regular basis, and re-allocating their patrol capacities accordingly.

We always try to work out what the problems are you sit with. You try to work out where is your problem and put all of your manpower there. Then, of course, as soon as you put all your people in one place, the criminal just moves to another place. So you have to move your people around all of the time. That is part of the problem.

In some station areas, the station commissioners use SANDF vehicles and resources to add to their patrol capacity, and direct these vehicles at particularly high-risk areas.

Community & Sector Policing

Every station commissioner we interviewed made mention of community policing, the CPF, or efforts to build police-community relations, as a significant component of crime prevention work at the station. Some also mentioned "sector policing" as an effective new, but related, approach. It does seem that ideas around "sector policing" are somewhat incoherent at this early stage, as we were given a range of different interpretations of the term. The core of it, though seems to be the "decentralisation" of community policing to more local "sectors", combined with localised crime pattern analysis and targeted patrol in these "sectors".

Integrated Problem-Solving

This also refers to "problem-oriented-policing", a term which we did not hear used in Johannesburg, but whose theoretical content clearly underpins much of the best situational crime prevention work in the city. This would cover all crime prevention activities which integrate the information, resources and services of non-police agencies.

Focus on Criminogenic Commodities

The station commissioners almost universally identified alcohol as a factor which contributes significantly to crime in Johannesburg. Some also identified firearms as a criminogenic factor, and a few inner-city station commissioners highlighted the relationship between crime and drugs. However, there was little evidence of crime prevention activities which focus on these criminogenic commodities, other than the examples cited below.

I started the firearm project whereby we teach the community weekly about the safe-keeping and safe-guarding of firearms. Because people are very negligent with their firearms. … We are not trying to promote using a firearm. Not at all. The main thing is that we want to say to them, if you are not prepared to look after your firearm, to keep it safe properly, get rid of it. Sell it.

We have a forum with the shebeens, the shebeen owners. We made an agreement with them that they will close at 10 o'clock daily, and they agreed to that. Since we met with them, our crimes of violence have dropped.

Noticeably absent also, are "demand reduction" approaches to these commodities; when station commissioners did talk about prevention activities relating to these commodities, it was largely at the level of enforcement (ie tackling the supply of these commodities to consumers).

Community and Social Crime Prevention Programmes Led by the Police

The main social crime prevention programme led by the SAPS in Greater Johannesburg is the "adopt-a-cop" programme, which was cited by more than half the station commissioners. This programme aims general crime prevention education and advice at children in schools.

Some police stations have other education and publicity campaigns too, ranging from poster campaigns to educational lectures given at old age homes.

Partnership Approaches to Crime Prevention

"Partnership" is the new buzzword in various aspects of governance, and the SAPS leadership and policy-makers are attempting to ensure that partnership approaches to crime prevention are inserted speedily into police policy and practice. Many of the station commissioners mentioned partnership projects with specific partners, and most referred to the general idea of "partnership" in relation to community policing.

We've formed a partnership with our local security companies. It's an independent system from the police radios, whereby all the security companies operating in this area – and there's a number of them – are prepared, and I set up meetings with them. They are prepared to buy their own radios of the system that we are going to buy for ourselves now, and so we will be able to communicate with them from the station and from vehicle to vehicle. So they are additional eyes and ears for us.

We've got partnerships in virtually all aspects, with local government, we sit on their Section 59 Committee for Safety and Safety, sit in their local response units, the Traffic Department, Taxi Forums, we sit with the Justice Department and we've got the Education Forum, our Adopt-A-Cop program, we sit with the Defence Force and we've got a Business Against Crime established, and we sit on all the Chamber of Commerce meetings. We've established all our partnerships, but at that level. But that's not necessarily where it's going to happen. It's the ordinary community members, they need to get involved, like the ordinary police.

The emergence of Business Against Crime (and its political influence on policing circles in Johannesburg) has been a major impetus for the insertion of notions of partnership into police crime prevention approaches. A specific BAC programme, which is service delivery-related, rather than crime prevention-related, has given some station commissioners their first concrete evidence of what the "partnership" idea could mean in practice.

However, the data gathered on "partnerships" in current crime prevention activities in Greater Johannesburg suggests two potential problems: Firstly, belief in partnership approaches is stronger in areas where potential partners are seen to be bringing valuable resources to the partnership. We found that station commissioners in the more affluent areas of Johannesburg were more enthusiastic and articulate about "partnerships" than their colleagues in former black townships and poorer suburbs. And, secondly, the discourse of partnership is under-developed and reminiscent of the early days "community policing" in South Africa. Police station commissioners (and, possibly, policy-makers) do not appear to have fully understood the radical implications of a true partnership approach:

While all crime prevention policy has relied upon collaboration, the nature of that collaboration has changed over time. … the greater the intensity of collaboration, the greater the stakes. Two or more autonomous agencies may communicate and co-operate, but the further they move past this point, the more their autonomy is compromised. (Gilling 1997: 162-3)

Non-Police Crime Prevention Initiatives

Only 8 station commissioners made mention of any non-police crime prevention activities in their station areas. Those that were mentioned were church activities, youth groups, private security operations, victim counselling services and programmes for street children. The lack of information on other activities could suggest that there are very few civil society crime prevention programmes in Johannesburg, but more likely that the police do not recognise crime prevention activities which take place outside of their direct sphere of work and control. There are, in fact, a number of non-government, welfare and church programmes taking place in Johannesburg, which are contributions to crime prevention, but they are, generally, not described and recognised as such.

Victim-Centred Crime Prevention Initiatives

Only 5 of the 38 stations mentioned any victim-related services or initiatives as part of their crime prevention activities. Of these, a number were victim aid or counselling services provided by other agencies, such as churches and welfare agencies. Only two police stations mentioned that they had in-house facilities and referral services for victims of serious violent crime. We know that more than two police stations in Johannesburg do, in fact, have programmes or facilities for victims; what this suggests is that station commissioners do not generally see work around victims as "crime prevention work".

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

Although many of the station commissioners referred to environmental factors contributing to crime in their areas, only two described any crime prevention activities of this type taking place in their station area. This may be a reflection of the relative newness of ideas around prevention by design, or a consequence of the lack of implementation of programmes in the NCPS' Pillar Three on Environmental Design. It is clearly an area of crime prevention and of local authority collaboration that is ripe for development.

We belong to the Section 59 committee and we are giving them input on designing of the area. If houses are coming, they must consult us on planning of the roads, shopping centres, the places where crime takes place.

Rehabilitation and Preventing Repeat Offending

None of the station commissioners mentioned any current crime prevention programmes dealing with offenders or repeat offenders. This may be because this type of work is not happening in Johannesburg, or because it is being conducted in spheres beyond the reach and knowledge of the station commissioners. However, the absence of data on this crucial aspect of crime prevention stands in contrast to the findings of the Johannesburg Victim Survey which show that repeat victimisation is more common than not for most types of serious crime (Louw et al p15). What our survey suggests is that the SAPS is doing little or nothing to prevent re-victimisation and re-offending.

Reducing and Preventing Crime – the Views and Approaches of the Station Commissioners

This section of the paper draws off data which was gathered in response to two questions to the station commissioners: "What do you believe are the solutions to the crime problem in this area?" and "What is your own approach to crime prevention?".

Partnership and Community Policing

The majority of the station commissioners (28) listed improved community relations, partnerships with the community, and community policing as solutions to the crime problems they face. This is congruent with a strong policy and political emphasis on community policing and partnerships in the years since the 1994 election, suggesting either that the policy has been thoroughly absorbed and adopted by the station commissioners, or, at least, that they know that community policing is the "politically correct" approach to be seen to be adopting. Most of the station commissioners are, by now, fairly experienced in attempting to implement community policing, and they made a range of sophisticated comments on the difficulties of practising community policing in the different parts of Johannesburg.

More Police, More Law Enforcement

More than two thirds of the station commissioners (27) suggested that more policing and more law enforcement would solve the crime problem, although they recognise that they have first to achieve maximal use of existing resources – this is a significant shift from discourse around police resources as recent as three years ago, when the demand was simply for more resources:

More police, more vehicles, more, more, more, more. But there is no money, so I cannot ask for more. I must actually utilise everything I have now at the moment.

The fact that most of the station commissioners advocate more policing and better policing and community policing simultaneously may suggest either that they are reluctant to give up the political demand for more resources, or that the resource squeeze being experienced by the police continues to underlie, and undermine, all other efforts to improve their service.

The way that the demand for more resources seems to be "packaged" at present is terms of increasing the visibility of the police in Johannesburg:

My own approach would be to have a guy available even when crime is not there. If we have that manpower permanently in the area, then we have no problem. Because as soon as they withdraw, then the problem occurs.

Visible policing – people could see that the police is around.

Visibility is definitely the in thing.

I see the solution to the crime problem in this area as visibility, police visibility. But we need manpower as well, to have visibility.

The "more enforcement" approach also encompasses those station commissioners who advocate a "tough on crime" approach as part of the solution to the crime problems of the city:

You have to be hard on criminals and do as much as you can to prevent any criminal activities in the area. If you don't have a strong opinion about criminals and you fight against them, then you are definitely going to lose the battle. They are tough and you have to be tough on them as well. Oppose bail where you can, fight for heavy sentencing, and try to do as much as possible to fight crime.

Also, punishment. The fact that criminals get away so easily. Punishment should definitely be proportionate to the crime.

Better Policing Techniques

The same majority of station commissioners (26) who advocate more policing and community policing also advocate better policing techniques as the solution to the crime problems they face. This reflects an interesting convergence of ideological approaches and a high degree of pragmatism.

The more police we have, the less crime there will be. While citizens and public officials often espouse that view, social scientists often claim the opposite extreme: that police make only minimal contributions to crime prevention in the context of far more powerful social institutions, like the family and labour markets. The truth appears to lie in between. Whether additional police prevent crime may depend on how well they are focussed on specific objectives, tasks, places, times and people. Most of all, it may depend upon putting police where serious crime is concentrated, at the times it is most likely to occur: policing based on risk factors. (Sherman 1997:ch 8)

The station commissioners who advocate "better policing" as the solution to the crime problems in Johannesburg tend to adopt this latter approach implied by Sherman – focussing the police on particular objectives, tasks, places, times and people.

Tactics suggested to us include "sector policing", better analysis, use and management of information about crime, and the use of improved information to direct patrol and enforcement activities. Many of the station commissioners were enthusiastic advocates of these type of approaches which have already been implemented and 'tested' in their station or area, so their beliefs in solutions are based on practice and perceived success, not just on theory.

Public Education and Attitude Change

In this category of crime prevention approaches we include public education strategies and the provision of security advice to potential victims of crime. We also include the various suggestions made by station commissioners that an improvement in police-community relations and strategies to reduce mutual mistrust would contribute to crime prevention in Johannesburg.

The public must be made aware of crime. They themselves must play a much bigger role in making their houses and surroundings safer.

If we can get a breakthrough and get the CPF functioning properly, then we can most probably get down crime in our area.

If we can better the relationship between the community and the police, if the community – and I'm talking about all the stakeholders – can get involved, and educate the community, then it would be different.

This category of solutions to crime problems drew only 13 supporters among the station commissioners we interviewed (ie, approximately one-third), a significant difference to the support given for the previous three approaches to crime prevention, which had the support of over two-thirds of the station commissioners . However, this may be because this type of crime prevention work is implicit in their understanding of the "community policing" approaches advocated in 8.1 above (which had majority support). It may also be that the majority of station commissioners recognise the limits of the generalised "publicity" or "educational" campaign to crime prevention.

Dis-Aggregated/Situational Problem-Solving

What do you think works to prevent crime?

It all depends. Crime is a very, very broad terminology. It will vary from crime to crime.

To drive up and down all the time is not always the answer; it probably satisfies the community in some way, it gives them a sense of security, but when it comes to the actual addressing of crime, you have to look at that specific thing and find the solution that will solve it.

Ten station commissioners made specific reference to the need to separate crimes and to develop prevention approached tailored to each crime problem. This should probably be read together with the responses of those who advocated the "better policing" approaches, because they are related, rather than competing, categories. We highlight the focussed problem-solving approach here to illustrate the relative strength of support for situational crime prevention in Johannesburg, and the possible influence of the NCPS imperative to "dis-aggregate" crimes on the approaches preferred by station commissioners.

Non-police Crime Prevention Initiatives

I believe in preventing crime, we have to start from the kids. … So crime prevention is a holistic approach and doesn't involve just putting policemen on the beat. Because that is a temporary deterrent. Crime prevention must come from within the family.

Less than one-sixth of the station commissioners (6) advocated non-police forms of crime prevention. This suggests again, that by virtue of their position, training or ideology, the majority of police station commissioners in Johannesburg do not support social crime prevention approaches.

Broken Windows & Zero-Tolerance

We do concentrate on the petty crimes as well, because if you address that problem then obviously you will have immense impact on more serious crimes.

Only four of the station commissioners we interviewed explicitly advocated a zero-tolerance or 'broken windows' approach to crime prevention in Johannesburg. It seems to have more appeal in the inner city and in areas where urban development or decay are experienced.

Some other commissioners explicitly rejected this approach, saying that they had tried it and it didn't work, or that it could not work in Johannesburg. Some of those who were critical of this approach made reference to the burdens it places on the already-overstretched justice system. There is clearly not significant support for this approach to crime prevention at this stage.

General Socio-Economic Improvements

Increasing the number of police is only short-term. In the long-term, I would say the council should provide housing for these people. When I talk of the council, I talk of the government as a whole. Look at these socio-economic conditions. … The government should look at the housing, should look at the unemployment.

Four station commissioners referred to general socio-economic improvements as part of the solution to the crime problems of Johannesburg, indicating, perhaps, some, limited, support for social crime prevention approaches.

Approaches Not Suggested

Only a handful of station commissioners suggested that environmental changes would contribute to solving the crime problem. None of them suggested victim aid or empowerment as solutions, and only one suggested rehabilitation or strategies focussed around repeat offending or repeat victimisation.

Our survey shows that the majority of station commissioners believe that more policing and better policing are the best solutions to the crime problems facing them in Johannesburg. Only 2 of the station commissioners we interviewed made any reference to, or mention of, the National Crime Prevention Strategy.

While the focus on police-centred solutions is logical, given their position in the police service and at the interface of enforcement against criminals, this trend does suggest that police managers in Johannesburg are either not aware of new directions in government crime prevention policy, or do not support the multi-agency, multi-faceted and interdisciplinary approaches to crime prevention being advocated in policy. Or, the police may be experiencing the same uncertainties as police organisations in other countries when new and radical approaches to crime prevention policy are introduced:

The [government] has pursued crime prevention simultaneously across a number of fronts, drawing in the private and independent sectors, as well as local government and various central initiatives, leaving the police in a position where they and others are unsure who should take the initiative, and who should be the leader. The problem is further compounded by the nature of contemporary crime prevention, which requires local flexibility: initiatives are to be informed by local problems, rather than central strategies; which, to some extent, necessitates an inversion of the traditional [police] organisational hierarchy. (Gilling 1997:117)

Relations between Police Stations and Local Authorities in Greater Johannesburg

Relations with Councillors

The councillors are not involved in crime prevention at all. I met the mayor yesterday. We have been telling the councillors 'get involved in crime [prevention]'. They must help us in activating the community to work with the police. The councillors, where they spend the majority of their time, I don't know.

Over two-thirds of the station commissioners (27) mentioned that they had had some contact with the elected local authority councillors in their areas. This includes some good relationships with councillors, who assist in activating local government officials and in problem-solving, and some which represent a once-off contact with a councillor. Many of the station commissioners voiced the view that councillors only attend CPF meetings, or get involved in crime prevention issues, at times of election or political competition. The political affiliation of the councillors also appears to influence the relationship between the station commissioner and the councillor, although we did not gather empirical evidence to prove this.

Relations with Officials

We do interact with the Traffic Department, but you don't find the other departments involved.

I find it difficult to answer how the local authority should fit into crime prevention. I think they would also have difficulty answering that.

Before the clean-up operation, we tried many times to do the same type of operation and we always got a negative response from the council side. No co-operation from them. What changed it was showing the Mayor and the MEC on a tour of the area. Then the Mayor called a meeting and got this whole thing moving.

The majority (29) of the station commissioners indicated that they had had some contact with the traffic department of the local authority, making this the most common interface between police and local government. Far fewer of the station commissioners had ever had contact with any other sections of the local government. The next most commonly-cited contacts with local authorities were over issues like street lighting, grass cutting, squatters and emergency services.

Our impression is that relationships between the police and local government are better in the more affluent parts of Johannesburg. In many of the former black townships and outlying parts of the Metro, the station commissioners had had no contact with the local authority whatsoever.

The overwhelming majority of station commissioners described ad-hoc interaction with local authorities, rather than any form of sustained relationship. Even in areas where the police participate in Section 59 Committees, the relationship to officials at both Metro and Substructures is overwhelmingly poor and ad-hoc.

The station commissioners generally feel neglected or ignored by the local authorities, but all agree, in theory at least, that local authorities do have an important contribution to make to crime prevention in Johannesburg.

The blame for the poor relationship between the police and local authorities cannot be laid solely at the door of either party. Both are undoubtedly overwhelmed by the number of agencies with whom they are expected to liaise in order to achieve integrated solutions to their respective problems, and both suffer from a lack of capacity and resources.

Station Commissioners' Proposals for Improvements

There are aspects the local government should attend to, like environment design.

The local authority needs to co-ordinate things which are related to one another. The traffic department needs to interact with us.

We don't want to tell them what to do, but we just want to be consulted so that we can tell them our views.

The station commissioners were not asked to make specific proposals as to how to improve relations with local authorities, but rather to suggest ways in which the local authorities could contribute to crime prevention in their areas. The most common answers suggested that local authorities could contribute in a range of areas, but particularly by playing a co-ordinating role, by engaging in inter-agency initiatives, and by addressing environmental problems.

Conclusion: Implications for Safer Cities

The findings of this survey suggest the following for the Johannesburg Safer Cities Programme:

• The definition of boundaries of service units in the SAPS need to be harmonised with local authority boundaries, particularly to enable effective information-sharing and to measure the impact of crime prevention strategies;

• The Safer Cities programme needs to pay particular attention to communicating with police station commissioners directly.

• The Safer Cities initiative provides an opportunity to improve relationships and communication between Johannesburg's local authorities and the police stations in the metropolitan area; and the Safer Cities office is well-placed to facilitate this relationship-building and communication;

• There are a number of "quick wins" to be found in crime prevention through environmental design – eg erecting street signs and numbering houses in former townships and informal settlements. The successful completion of such projects would go some way to improving relationships between the police and local authorities in Greater Johannesburg;

• Local authority crime prevention programmes (such as Safer Cities) could assist in addressing criminogenic commodities such as firearms and liquor, by mobilising all local government agencies into demand reduction activities and by declaring all local government premises alcohol-free and gun-free zones;

The Safer Cities programme is intended as a model of collaborative, modern crime prevention. It cannot achieve its full potential without the co-operation of the South African Police Service. Police commissioners have, in this survey, expressed a desire to work more closely with local government around crime prevention. The Safer Cities venture is an ideal vehicle for development of this crucial partnership.

Notes:

¹ For this reason, SAPS crime statistics provided for the "Johannesburg Area" cannot be used to describe reported crime trends for the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Area as a whole. In fact, the SAPS "Johannesburg Area" includes only 20 police stations out of the 38 which we located in Greater Johannesburg – see annexure.

² The National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) lists fourteen "factors giving rise to crime in South Africa" including: South Africa's transition to democracy, poverty, unemployment and relative deprivation, youth marginalisation, inadequate support to victims of crime, social-psychological factors, access to firearms and gender inequality. NCPS 1996 pp13-22.

Bibliography

Donziger S (ed) (1996) The Real War on Crime: The Report of the National Criminal Justice Commission. Harper Perennial, New York.

Gilling D (1997) Crime Prevention: Theory, Policy and Politics UCL Press, London.

Hough M & Tilley N (1997) Getting Grease to the Squeak: Research Lessons for Crime Prevention. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 85. Home Office Police Research Group, London.

Louw A et al (1998) Crime in Johannesburg – Results of a City Victim Survey. ISS Monograph Series no 18 Feb 1998. Institute for Security Studies, Halfway House.

Rauch J (1992) South African Police Basic Training: A preliminary assessment. Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation Research Report, Braamfontein.

Reiner R (1991) Chief Constables. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Sherman L et al (1997) Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. A Report to the United States Congress. National Institute of Justice. Washington DC.

South African Government (1996) National Crime Prevention Strategy Dept of Safety & Security, Pretoria.

South African Police Service (1997) Police Priorities and Objectives 1997/98 SAPS Head Office. Pretoria.

© Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation